User talk:NinthAmendment
Don't add large pieces of unsourced text. Don't add your opinion. This is an encyclopedia. Don't waste your time. Ratemonth (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Don't add bad writing. Don't add your opinion. Don't add fluff. Don't make stupid threats. I don't care if you're a law professor. I don't care if you wrote the Ninth Amendment. Nobody should care. Ratemonth (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Websites whose main purpose is to promote a political point of view are not reliable sources. Don't cite them. Also, make sure the website you're citing actually mentions the point you're trying to make. Information that is not sourced or based on unreliable sources must be deleted. Ratemonth (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't care what your political opinions are, and you certainly don't know mine. Again, make sure your writing is encyclopedic and all information is based on reliable sources. Ratemonth (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Dear friend,
[edit]There are problems with this edit [1] to the article Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Without comment to the validity or accuracy of the information, the bulk of it falls outside the expectations of an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, our objective is not to analyse or offer critique on the government or other political interpretations, it is to summarize the topic. In some articles (in particular, events), this might include providing alternative viewpoints, balanced to show all perspectives, with the goal of providing a neutral point of view. In other articles, simply adding a perspective (specifically, a libertarian perspective to this article) what you are doing is violating WP:NPOV. It doesn't matter if it is or isn't accurate in the individual points, as it is presented as an opinion of interpretation. In other words, Wikipedia isn't the place to publish this original research and opinion. The very foundation of the encyclopedia is to provide balance within the article, not to compensate for some inbalance outside of the published work here. This is why we require high quality sources that pass WP:RS and are independent of the subject matter, why we require all contentious information is verifiable under WP:V, and why we insist that all articles provide a politically neutral point of view. The goal is to inform the reader of the subject matter and its history, not to tell them how or what to think. That would be the goal of an essay, a paper that is designed to persuade others to your point of view.
Judging by your choice of user names and the singular focus of the types of edits you have made since joining the community at Wikipedia, it appears you have a single goal here. Unfortunately, this goal is incompatible with the greater goal of Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the links I've provided above, and the most important guide we have, the WP:Five pillars. Additionally, I believe the policy What Wikipedia is not will help you by explaining what Wikipedia is, and what it is not. If you have questions, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 18:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)Who is "we"?
[edit]At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you wrote that "we had written" something. Who is this "we"? Are you a "royal", a publication editor speaking in the person of his/her publication, or...? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)